by Timothy Charles Holmseth
The activities of the Boardwalk Enterprises/EDHA/EGF loan fraud money laundering scheme have been reported to the Department of Justice.
The Complaint reads in part:
East Grand Forks city employees and elected leaders are using their positions to steal government money and enrich themselves. The flow of funds originated from state and federal disaster relief that came as result of the historic flooding of the Red River in 1997.
I reported the City of EGF to the Minnesota State Auditor on December 8, 2013, and requested an audit. At some point an audit was called for. On April 30, 2014, the Grand Forks Herald reported ‘$510,000 loan to EGF goes unpaid for 10 years’.
The fraud was connected to a group of local officials including the mayor, city attorney, EDHA director, and several others.
Attempts to cover up the fraud and organized criminal activity were made by the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and East Grand Forks Police Department. see above-mentioned lawsuit
The fraud involves a company called Boardwalk Enterprises LLP that borrowed over half a million dollars. Annual payments of $30,000 were supposed to begin in 2003 but never did. Not a single payment was ever made and the mortgage was never filed. Virtually all traces of the loan disappeared from the record. Neither the lender nor the loaner said anything.
On May 7, 2014, local officials held an official (closed) meeting with representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises and their (Boardwalk’s) attorney to discuss a ‘solution’ to the unpaid loan problem.
The May 7, 2014, meeting was suspicious because it was held at the private office of EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad (Galstad, Jensen, & McCann).
On May 7, 2014, EGF city administrator David Murphy told WDAZ news that city officials met with representatives of Boardwalk Enterprises and their “attorney”. However – to this very day – Murphy and city officials will not disclose who Boardwalk Enterprises’ attorney was on May 7, 2014.
EGF City Council and EDHA Board members focus of suspicion for involvement in money-laundering scheme
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
Michael LaCoursiere, Minnesota Public Defender’s Office, believed something was amiss with the actions of EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad shortly after the East Grand Forks Police Department abruptly seized the hard-drive and journalism equipment of Timothy Charles Holmseth.
Documents recently obtained from Public Defender supervisor Kip Fontaine contained email exchanges between LaCoursiere, Galstad, and Judge Tamara Yon.
LaCoursiere stated his concerns in a December 19, 2012, email to Judge Tamara Yon and Ronald Galstad.
“A search warrant was also executed and property of Mr. Holmseth has been seized since our last hearing. I am going to ask for a continuance to review the Search and the Warrant and time to make the proper objections if Mr. Holmseth’s constitutional rights have been violated. Springing all these new request and executing a search warrant on the eve of our hearing is like Trial by ambush,” LaCoursiere said.
The email communication was initiated by Galstad, who was desperately trying to convince the Judge his witness should not be required to appear in person, but rather, be able to appear from out of state via ITV. The email contained three full pages of case law and legal opinion why Holmseth did not have a right to face his accuser.
“[The State’s witness] is in [another State] and the expense of the judicial economy would dictate that the efficiencies of ITV would serve justice in this matter,” Galstad said.
Galstad’s reference to the “expense of the judicial economy” creates serious questions about previous statements he made to the Court on October 29, 2012, when a Jury Trial was scheduled for Holmseth.
On October 29, 2012, upon a (coerced) Alford plea, Judge Yon asked Galstad, “So you’re not asking, for example, [for Timothy Holmseth] to pay plane tickets or anything like that?”
Galstad replied, “No”.
Judge Yon’s question to Galstad clearly indicates the Court believed the State had a witness present to testify before the agreement was reached.
In 2014, Holmseth requested the City of EGF produce Accounts Payable records to demonstrate that the City paid travel expenses for their out-of-state witness to testify on October 29, 2012.
EGF City Attorney David Murphy reported to Holmseth that an investigation found no records of any such expenses ever being paid out.
RONALD GALSTAD AND TIMOTHY HOLMSETH’S CHILD
During the exact same time period that Ronald Galstad was suspected of violating Holmseth’s Constitutional rights, he was actively involving himself with Holmseth’s parental rights via a Thief River Falls law firm, Charlson-Jorgenson.
The evidence shows Galstad to be a man obsessed with a local journalist.
On December 18, 2012, a review hearing was held in Roseau County Family Court where Timothy Holmseth was defending against the latest batch of accusations made against him by his child’s mother, Rhonda Callahan, and Matthew Petrovich, guardian ad litem.
Callahan, legally represented by Michael Mattocks, Charlson-Jorgenson, was again attempting to suspend Holmseth’s parental rights.
Emails and courtroom testimony show Callahan had been sending information about Holmseth to kidnapping suspects in Florida, who were then publishing it on the Web. Callahan and Michael Jorgenson were also coordinating (false) CPS complaints and nuisance calls to the police with the kidnapping suspects in Florida.
Callahan had been communicating with Galstad’s witness since 2009, after Holmseth interviewed law enforcement’s suspects in the kidnapping of HaLeigh Ann-Marie Cummings.
RONALD GALSTAD AND MICHAEL MATTOCKS
During the December 18, 2012 hearing a nexus was made between Galstad and Charlson-Jorgenson Law Office when Mattocks told Judge Donna Dixon that he had spoken to EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad and been advised that Holmseth’s Stay of Execution had been revoked and Holmseth was in trouble with the law.
RONALD GALSTAD AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM MATTHEW PETROVICH
In the summer of 2013, Matthew Petrovich emailed Timothy Holmseth and told him he had been reading his website – http://www.writeintoaction.com. Holmseth had been publishing articles exposing local officials, including Galstad, for corrupt activities. Petrovich told Holmseth he needed to stay off his computer and start thinking about what was important to him.
Holmseth continued to report to the public what local officials were doing.
In the fall of 2013, Callahan ands her lawyer (Mattocks) filed a Motion to the Court alleging Holmseth was “delusional” and psychologically harming their son. Attached as supporting exhibits to Callahan’s Motion was printed out articles from Holmseth’s website regarding corrupt local officials and law enforcement. Callahan also filed an Affidavit that made no less than seven references to Holmseth’s ‘delusional’ ‘theories’ about the kidnapping of HaLeigh Cummings.
Petrovich quickly supported Callahan’s Motion by submitting a Guardian’s report asserting Holmseth was “paranoid” and recommended Holmseth see his son under supervision only. During a subsequent hearing, Petrovich supported his assertion that Holmseth was paranoid by lamenting to the Court that Holmseth had filed a complaint against “Ronald Galstad”.
In December of 2013, Dr. Madaline Barnes PhD performed a parental capacity/psychological examination of Holmseth and determined he was a good and loving parent; mentally healthy; posed no threat to his son; was not delusional; and his parenting-time should be re-instated. It was the third psychological test Holmseth had taken and passed (he passed every test he ever took).
Despite Holmseth passing the parental capacity tests – Callahan, Mattocks, and Petrovich continued their siege against Holmseth.
During this time, Callahan was investigated by Grand Forks CPS and a plan was developed for her due to some parenting issues that needed to be addressed.
Holmseth has never been found to be insufficient as a parent in any way by CPS; or by any final judgment of a Court.
At Family Court hearings on March 3, and May 20, 2014, Petrovich, Callahan, and Mattocks, argued to the Court that restrictions should be placed on Holmseth’s parenting-time, and argued he should be restricted from writing stories (about corrupt government officials) on his computer if he is to have custody of his son.
During the May 20, 2014, court hearing, Timothy Holmseth lifted a copy of the April 30, 2014, edition of the Grand Forks Herald. The headline read ‘$510,000 loan to EGF goes unpaid for 10 years’.
The headline decimated the argument that Holmseth was delusional about local corruption and created serious questions about the perpetual defamation against Holmseth by Galstad, Mattocks, Petrovich, and Callahan.
Holmseth argued to Judge Yon at a prior hearing that if a reporter at the Fargo Forum or Grand Forks Herald had reported corruption they would not be labeled delusional or have their child taken from them.
The Boardwalk Enterprises loan fraud money laundering scheme was exposed as result of an audit.
In December of 2013, Timothy Holmseth reported the City of EGF to the Minnesota State Auditor and requested an audit.
JUDGE YON ENTERS RULING
On August 12, 2014, Judge Tamara Yon denied all requests for un-constitutional restrictions on Holmseth’s publication; dismissed Matthew Petrovich as guardian ad litem; did not assign another GAL – rather, a Third Party Neutral that specializes in cases with high-conflict between the parents.
BOARDWALK ENTERPRISES AND TAXPAYER FUNDS
Galstad is presently under deep scrutiny regarding his role in the Boardwalk Enterprises loan fraud money laundering scheme.
Many suspect Ronald Galstad was the attorney for both Boardwalk Enterprises and the City of EGF during an official public meeting held on May 7, 2014, at Galstad’s private law office. Questions also exist about Galstad possibly being a member of the Boardwalk Enterprises ownership group.
Questions are mounting regarding the use of taxpayer money to pay:
- Legal expenses for the dead end malicious prosecution of Timothy Holmseth
- Legal expenses to protect EGF city officials and elected leaders involved in the Boardwalk Enterprises money laundering scheme
- Legal expenses to defend corrupt Defendants named in Holmseth v. City of East Grand Forks et al
MONEY LAUNDERING SCHEME
Many taxpayers believe members of the EGF city council and EDHA board are either directly involved or criminally complacent in the Boardwalk Enterprises loan fraud money laundering scheme.
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
Elected officials in East Grand Forks, Minnesota face increased scrutiny in what appears to be a cover-up of serious criminal activity involving loan fraud and money-laundering.
On June 3, 2014, the Grand Forks Herald reported the EGF city council voted to hire an outside attorney, Fargo-based lawyer Brad Sinclair, to handle affairs surrounding an unpaid $510,000 loan made to Boardwalk Enterprises.
“City Administrator David Murphy said the idea was brought to him by a couple of city council members,” the Herald reported.
The news report does not name the Council members that conferred with Murphy; nor does it state where they met.
MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW
Minnesota State Statutes 13D.04 – NOTICE OF MEETINGS – sets forth clear laws and regulations regarding when and how elected officials and government can meet and/or hold a meeting.
There is no indication the public was noticed that Murphy was meeting with members of the EGF City Council to discuss Boardwalk Enterprises. However, according to Murphy, discussions from the meeting ultimately resulted in a vote being taken by the City Council regarding City Attorney Ronald Galstad and Boardwalk Enterprises.
VOTING TO HIRE THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEY
The June 3, 2014, EGF City Council meeting agenda, which was emailed to the public on May 30, does not contain any information whatsoever regarding City Attorney Ronald Galstad or the proposed hiring of an outside attorney to handle the unpaid Boardwalk loan.
But a vote did take place.
The city council voted to hire Fargo-based attorney Brad Sinclair on June 3, 2014, and he officially began that role on June 4, 2014. That would mean Attorney Sinclair must have been contacted prior to the June 3, vote and was prepared to represent EGF if the council voted to do so.
EARLY INDICATIONS OF COVER-UP
On April 30, 2014, the Herald reported ‘$510,000 loan to EGF goes unpaid for 10 years’.
On May 7, 2014, David Murphy, administrator, City of EGF, told WDAZ that city officials met with “representatives” of “Boardwalk Enterprises” and their “attorney”.
As of today’s date, the City of EGF will still not disclose the identity of the attorney that was representing Boardwalk Enterprises at the May 7, 2014, meeting. The meeting was held at the private office of EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad (as opposed to EGF City Hall).
Likewise, EGF officials will not disclose whether or not the City’s actual attorney on May 7, 2014 – Ronald Galstad – was actually representing the City at the meeting.
Many are beginning to speculate that Galstad was actually representing Boardwalk Enterprises at the meeting (hence – the meeting was held at Galstad’s private office).
If Galstad was Boardwalk’s lawyer on May 7, 2014; EGF city officials could face criminal investigation themselves for actively covering up a series of felonies and organized crime.
On May 27, 2014, Galstad gave a presentation to the EGF EDHA board during a public meeting. He gave a summary rundown of what his internal investigation had determined thus far regarding the un-paid loan. Galstad investigated the Boardwalk issue by scouring through all the files. Crucial documentation regarding the loan simply did not exist – as if all traces of the loan had simply disappeared.
If Galstad was Boardwalk Enterprises attorney at the May 7, 2014, meeting, that means EGF officials allowed Boardwalk Enterprises full and un-fettered access to scour (sanitize) the files until June 3, 2014, when they finally replaced Galstad.
And – it appears city officials did in fact believe/know something was amiss.
On June 3, WDAZ reported the City Council voted to hire Fargo-based attorney Brad Sinclair to represent EGF regarding the unpaid loan. Sinclair replaced Galstad for purposes of the ‘Boardwalk’ issue. “This is just for removing any questions of conflict of interest or just to get a neutral third party to look at it.” Murphy said.
Murphy has never expanded upon why he and the un-named City Council members believed Galstad might have a “conflict of interest” or may not be “neutral” regarding the issue.
Murphy and other would be required to answer these questions to state or federal investigators; or under deposition.
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
EGF City Attorney Ronald Galstad reported to the EDHA Board on May 27, 2014 that he had been reviewing the files associated with the $510,000 loan to Boardwalk Enterprises (BE).
“With staff’s help I’ve been kind of trying to piece together a scenario of what ended up happening,” Galstad said.
Galstad was faced with the daunting task of explaining why BE had not made a single payment on the 1999 loan. In addition to the loan issue – the Mortgage had never been filed.
The basic facts and circumstances of the loan issue are very suspicious and have ignited a firestorm of emotions throughout the community. EDHA board members and city council members report on record they have been approached by angry citizens that believe the local politicians are thieves and crooks and should be fired.
Close analysis of Galstad’s verbal narrative and timeline now raises yet another question about the loan scandal. Was Galstad – himself – involved in the loan scandal – and is he trying to cover it up?
Galstad’s entire timeline and narrative may have been a self-incriminating statement, because it indicates he attempted to obfuscate the facts and circumstances surrounding his own knowledge of the massive fraud that was occurring since 1999.
Galstad reported that on August 11, 2008, BE contacted EDHA Director Jim Richter claiming cost overruns. BE asserted the City hadn’t paid $72,000 in taxes that were the City’s responsibility per the Development Agreement. Galstad said BE claimed it was owed a total of $190,000 from the City between taxes and offsets.
Of course – disputes and entanglements of this nature are not entirely unusual.
The problem is – the ‘tax’ dispute between BE and the City in 2008 had already surfaced twice before – once in 2002-2003 – and again in 2006 – and Galstad knew about it. In fact he was directly involved in solving the first dispute.
2002/2003 TAX DISPUTE
In 2002, BE received a tax delinquent notice. BE quickly protested because according to the Development Agreement, the City was supposed to pay the taxes from 2001 to 2005.
Galstad, who has read and understands the Development Agreement, was asked about the tax obligation by a Board member at the May 27, 2014 meeting. “The City would be responsible for the taxes from 2001 to 2005,” Galstad replied.
In 2002, when BE received the tax delinquency notice, Galstad was involved in trying to solve the dispute.
Here’s how that is known.
On June 3, 2003, Galstad sent a letter to City officials, as well as Grant Shaft, attorney for Opp Construction. Galstad’s letter was regarding a $4,000 un-paid bill for a paving project on the boardwalk that was supposed to be paid by BE.
“I’m not exactly sure of the timing on it but it seems that a lot of it had been prompted by me sending a letter – or me sending out a letter that said there is this $4,000 bill sitting out there for this paving project … that’s what triggered this discussion,” Galstad said.
Indeed – six days later Galstad’s June 3, 2003 letter was attached to a list of cost overruns submitted to Richter by BE.
“June 9 of 2003 Mr. Stauss itemized – uhh – sent a letter to Mr. Richter itemizing what he’s characterizing as cost overruns and in that letter he attached – and itemization – he attached an itemization of what he believed the cost overruns were – he provided documentation of the tax – the tax statements – he provided itemization of – uhh – well – of uhh – the – uhh – my letter – and also what he did at that point in time – he also attached a copy of that Development Agreement in June of 2003 which outlined everything in this loan,” Galstad said.
2006 TAX DISPUTE
Galstad advised the EDHA Board that in April of 2006 the tax dispute between BE and the City re-surfaced when Polk County sent out a tax delinquency notice. He added that at that time, in May of 2006, EDHA Director Jim Richter (retired) became involved and appeared before the Polk County commissioners to request the taxes be forgiven based upon a “miscommunication” regarding the taxes; the Commission subsequently granted the request.
However – there is a serious problem with this.
According to Galstad, the Development Agreement dictates the City will pay the taxes between 2001 and 2005. So why is Galstad reporting to the EDHA Board that the taxes were forgiven by the Polk County Commission based upon a “miscommunication”?
Even if that fact is technically true – anybody going into the Polk County Commission and suggesting the taxes were not paid based upon a “miscommunication” would be lying if the Development Agreement clearly states the City shall pay the taxes from 2001 to 2005.
Nonetheless – Galstad reported this “miscommunication” theory to the EDHA Board on May 27, 2014 – and in doing so – he may have committed a felony.
Galstad is obligated to properly advise the EDHA Board that Richter’s song and dance about a “miscommunication” was simply not true, because the governing document was the Development Agreement – which stated the City was obligated to pay the taxes.
Essentially – Galstad covered for somebody – possibly himself.
It is not known why Galstad chose to mislead the EDHA Board but he may need to explain it to federal investigators.
There were tax disputes regarding BE and the City in 2002/03, 2006, and 2008, and Galstad was aware of them.
Upon a call for an audit in 2014, Galstad was not forthcoming with his knowledge.
He still isn’t.